On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 09:37:23AM -0500, Christopher M. Kelty wrote: > Fair enough: what you are arguing is that one standard method of cost > accounting explains why twinkies are cheaper. Other (non-standard?
actually, i'm pointing out that the inherent cost makes twinkies cheaper, not some form of cost accounting. if half your crop rots on the way to the market, you need to cover your losses when you sell the remaining crop, no matter how you account for the loss! > But let me reiterate in that friendly but direct way :) I think you > missed the point of the article: the evil in current US subsidies is > not that they cause Twinkies to be cheaper (they don't, you say): it current subsidies for cereal crops may well make twinkies cheaper than carrots; they do not make twinkies cheaper than, say, wheat flour, which is as cereal-intensive but less processed and perhaps a bit healthier. the evil in current US and EU agricultural subsidies, as with most subsidies, is that they favour industrialised agriculture and products that can come out of industrialised agriculture. these happen to be cereal crops (or sugar producing crops such as beet). this is bad for the environment and unhealthy. but i'm not sure that it is accurate to claim that such subsidies are the main reason for the lower price of processed foods - they would provide a price reduction to unprocessed cereal produce, and processed foods would remain cheaper even without such subsidies. why vegetables and fruits aren't as subsidised is another matter (less susceptible to industrialisation on a large scale = smaller firms = lower profits = less lobbying power). some european pols have argued for moving subsidies to organic / sustainable agriculture (this is the focus in austria) - which could bring the price of an organic carrot closer to a "non-organic" (plastic?) carrot, but would probably not significantly bridge the gap with twinkies. -rishab
